<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - dEQP failures on llvmpipe" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94957#c8">Comment # 8</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - dEQP failures on llvmpipe" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94957">bug 94957</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:sroland@vmware.com" title="Roland Scheidegger <sroland@vmware.com>"> Roland Scheidegger</a> <pre>(In reply to Ilia Mirkin from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=94957#c7">comment #7</a>) > > Also, I'm wondering if the test is overly picky about pow. The spec says > > right there the error is derived as pow(x,y) = exp2(log2(y) * x) (note there > > is a spec bug, x and y are swapped), which is exactly as we implement it. > > Therefore, if our results are good enough for passing exp2 and log2, we > > should pass pow as well. > > pow() fails for inf ^ x == inf. I glanced at the gallivm code, and this > appears to be on purpose (i.e. you generate faster code that doesn't handle > inf). > Ahh right forgot about that - we hook up the safe log2 version for LG2 tgsi opcode, but use the unsafe version for pow. I think we did the lg2 safe version for d3d10 initially, since in gl it traditionally didn't really matter. And pow doesn't exist in d3d10. I suppose we could switch that if it's really worth it (too bad the special values require 3 comparisons, 3 selects).</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>